AB 565 Explained: How California’s New Virtual Representation Law Simplifies Trust Administration

If you serve as a trustee for a California trust, you already know how complicated the notice requirements can be. Tracking down every beneficiary, including minors, people whose addresses you cannot find, and beneficiaries who have not even been born yet, has long been one of the most frustrating (and expensive) parts of trust administration in San Diego County.

Assembly Bill 565, also known as California AB 565, changes that. Signed by Governor Newsom on July 14, 2025, and effective January 1, 2026, AB 565 rewrites California Probate Code Section 15804 to authorize broad virtual representation for trust beneficiaries. This article explains what AB 565 virtual representation means, who qualifies to serve as a representative, what safeguards protect vulnerable beneficiaries, and how these changes affect trust administration for San Diego County families in 2026 and beyond.

What Is Virtual Representation Under California AB 565?

California AB 565 virtual representation allows one person with a substantially identical interest in a trust to receive notice, consent, and bind another person who lacks the legal capacity to represent themselves in that trust matter under California Probate Code Section 15804, effective January 1, 2026.

Virtual representation is not a new concept nationwide. Before AB 565, 47 other states already had some form of virtual representation statute. California, along with Louisiana and Oklahoma, was one of only three states without one. The old version of Section 15804 dealt only with notice to successor interest holders and was, as many California practitioners have acknowledged, confusing and difficult to apply in practice.

The new statute completely replaces the old language. It creates a modern, comprehensive framework that allows a competent adult to represent and bind trust beneficiaries or other individuals who lack the capacity to act for themselves, as long as specific conditions are met.

This brings California into alignment with the Uniform Trust Code and makes California estate planning trusts more attractive for families who might otherwise consider establishing trusts in other jurisdictions.

Who Can a Virtual Representative Stand In For? Understanding MIUUs

Under AB 565, virtual representation applies to individuals who cannot represent themselves in trust matters, collectively known as MIUUs: minors, incapacitated persons, unborn persons, and persons whose identity or location is unknown and not reasonably ascertainable.

Before AB 565, when a trust beneficiary fell into any of these categories, trustees in California had limited options.

They typically needed to petition the court for appointment of a guardian ad litem, which added delay, legal fees, and complexity to what might otherwise be a straightforward administrative action. For routine matters like a trustee accounting or a minor trust modification, these costs often seemed disproportionate to the task.

Consider a common San Diego County example. A grandparent creates a California revocable living trust that benefits their children and grandchildren. By the time the trust needs administration, there may be minor grandchildren, grandchildren not yet born, and possibly beneficiaries whose current addresses the trustee cannot locate. Under the old rules, the trustee would have needed to arrange separate notice procedures for each category. Under AB 565, virtual representation streamlines this process significantly.

Who Qualifies as a Virtual Representative Under California Probate Code Section 15804?

California Probate Code Section 15804 authorizes eight categories of persons who may serve as virtual representatives. Section 15804(e) establishes seven fiduciary categories: parents (for their minor and later-born children), conservators of the estate, guardians of the estate, guardians ad litem, agents under a power of attorney, trustees (for qualified trust beneficiaries), and personal representatives (for persons interested in an estate). Section 15804(h) separately authorizes holders of a power of appointment to represent potential appointees.

The statute also permits a person with a substantially identical interest in the trust to represent any MIUU, unless that person is already represented by a fiduciary listed in Section 15804(e) or a power of appointment holder under Section 15804(h). This is the broadest category of virtual representation.

For example, if two siblings share equal interests in a trust and one sibling is a competent adult while the other is incapacitated, the competent sibling may represent and bind the incapacitated sibling for purposes of notice and consent.

California Trust Notice Requirements: Before and After AB 565

What Safeguards Does AB 565 Include to Protect Beneficiaries?

California AB 565 includes three primary safeguards against misuse of virtual representation: a prohibition on representation when a conflict of interest exists, a prohibition on settlors representing beneficiaries for trust modification or termination, and a written consent requirement for representation under California Probate Code Section 15804.

Conflict of Interest Prohibition

Under Section 15804(b)(1), no person may serve as a virtual representative if they have a conflict of interest with the represented person regarding the specific matter at issue.

This is the statute’s most important safeguard. It prevents anyone from using virtual representation to benefit themselves at the expense of a beneficiary who cannot speak for themselves. If there is any question about whether a conflict exists, the trustee or attorney should consider seeking court guidance or requesting appointment of a guardian ad litem.

Settlor Cannot Represent Beneficiaries for Trust Modification or Termination

Under Section 15804(b)(2), a settlor may not represent and bind a beneficiary regarding the termination or modification of an irrevocable trust. This rule ensures that a trust creator cannot use virtual representation to undo protections they built into the trust for their beneficiaries’ benefit.

Written Consent Requirement

When a person consents on behalf of another person under this statute, that consent must be in writing under Section 15804(c)(1). The written consent is binding on the represented person unless they object to the representation before the consent becomes effective, as provided in Section 15804(c)(2). This requirement creates a clear paper trail and gives represented persons an opportunity to object if they later gain capacity or become known.

Trustee Liability Protection

Trustees and other fiduciaries who rely in good faith on a virtual representation are protected under Section 15804(c)(3). A fiduciary who acts based on a valid representation will not be liable for any resulting loss, unless the fiduciary committed a breach of trust intentionally, with gross negligence, in bad faith, or with reckless indifference to the interests of a beneficiary. This protection gives trustees in Carlsbad, San Diego County, and throughout California confidence to use virtual representation for routine trust administration matters.

How Does AB 565 Virtual Representation Affect California Trust Administration in Practice?

AB 565 reduces the administrative burden and cost of trust administration in California by allowing trustees to satisfy notice requirements through virtual representation rather than individually notifying every beneficiary, including those who are minors, incapacitated, unborn, or whose location is unknown.

For many San Diego County families, the practical impact is straightforward. Routine trust actions that previously required court involvement or guardian ad litem appointments can now proceed more efficiently. These actions include trustee accountings, trust modifications, changes in trustee, and notices of proposed action under California Probate Code Sections 16500 through 16504.

The cost savings can be meaningful. Multi-generational trusts often accumulate dozens of beneficiaries over time, including minor children, grandchildren not yet born, and family members whose addresses change frequently. Before AB 565, notice procedures alone for a routine trustee accounting on a trust with 30 or more beneficiaries could cost thousands of dollars. Virtual representation can reduce those notice expenses substantially, ensuring more trust assets go to beneficiaries rather than administrative costs.

When Should a California Trustee Still Provide Full Notice Instead of Relying on Virtual Representation?

Experienced California trust administration attorneys recommend providing full notice to all beneficiaries when the trust action is potentially divisive, when beneficiary interests may not be truly identical, or when there is any uncertainty about whether a conflict of interest exists between the representative and the represented person.

AB 565 is a powerful tool for routine, uncontroversial trust administration matters. However, careful practitioners recognize that the cost of providing full notice is often small compared to the risk of future litigation over inadequate notice. A beneficiary who was virtually represented could later challenge the action if a conflict of interest existed that was not apparent at the time.

As estate planning attorneys in Carlsbad, California, we advise trustees to evaluate each situation individually. For straightforward matters where all beneficiary interests clearly align, virtual representation can save time and money. For actions that could affect beneficiaries differently, such as a trust modification that changes distribution percentages, full notice remains the safer approach. Opelon LLP helps San Diego County trustees navigate these decisions as part of our trust administration services.

Why Did California Enact AB 565? Competing with Other Trust Jurisdictions

California enacted AB 565 to reduce administrative friction in trust proceedings, align California Probate Code with the Uniform Trust Code, and make California a more competitive jurisdiction for trust establishment compared to states like Nevada, Delaware, Wyoming, and South Dakota.

For years, California families with significant assets have considered establishing trusts in other states specifically to avoid California’s complex and expensive administrative requirements. States like Nevada and Delaware offer streamlined trust administration rules, favorable tax treatment, and robust asset protection statutes. California’s lack of a virtual representation statute was one more reason families looked elsewhere.

AB 565 was authored by Assemblywoman Diane Dixon (R-Newport Beach), sponsored by the California Lawyers Association Trusts and Estates Section Executive Committee (TEXCOM), and co-sponsored by the California Bankers Association. The bill passed unanimously in both chambers, with a 74-0 vote in the Assembly and a 37-0 vote in the Senate, reflecting broad bipartisan support for this practical reform.

How Does AB 565 Interact with Existing California Trust Notice Requirements?

AB 565 supplements, but does not replace, existing California trust notice requirements under the Probate Code, including the 60-day beneficiary notification requirement under Probate Code Section 16061.7 and notice of proposed action requirements under Probate Code Sections 16500 through 16504.

The statute clarifies that virtual representation does not affect the requirements for notice to a person who has requested special notice, a person who has filed a notice of appearance, or a particular person or entity required by statute to receive notice. It also does not limit the availability of a guardian ad litem under Probate Code Section 1003. Trustees and their attorneys retain the option to seek court appointment of a guardian ad litem whenever they believe the circumstances warrant it.

This means AB 565 gives trustees an additional tool, not a replacement for careful trust administration. Trustees must still comply with all other notice requirements under California law. Virtual representation simply provides a more efficient way to satisfy those requirements when the conditions of the statute are met.

What Steps Should California Trustees Take Now That AB 565 Is in Effect?

California trustees should review existing trusts to determine whether virtual representation could simplify future administration, update their notice procedures to incorporate the new rules under Probate Code Section 15804, and consult with an experienced California trust administration attorney before relying on virtual representation for the first time.

1. Review trust documents. Examine the trust instrument to identify all classes of beneficiaries, including contingent and future beneficiaries. Determine whether the trust includes powers of appointment that could benefit from virtual representation.
2. Identify MIUU beneficiaries. Catalog any beneficiaries who are minors, incapacitated, unborn, or whose identity or location is unknown. These are the individuals for whom virtual representation is most useful.
3. Evaluate potential conflicts. Before using virtual representation, carefully assess whether any conflict of interest exists between the proposed representative and the represented beneficiary. Document this analysis.
4. Obtain written consent when required. If the representative will provide consent on behalf of the represented person, ensure that consent is provided in writing as required by Section 15804(c)(1).
5. Consult with a California trust administration attorney. AB 565 is new law, and courts have not yet had the opportunity to interpret many of its provisions. An experienced attorney can help you determine when virtual representation is appropriate and when full notice remains the better approach.

Frequently Asked Questions About California AB 565 Virtual Representation